Nostalgic sentiment for government television is no reason to continue funding it. Imagine, if you will, a brand new state called Idaho, born in the year 2010. What government services should this new state offer? Would this new 21st century government really include a taxpayer-funded television network? Probably not, and the reason is simple: It's not needed. It's government waste.
The arguments once used to validate the existence of taxpayer-subsidized government television no longer hold true. For example, in the past, supporters of Idaho Public Television could argue that if not for Idaho Public Television, Idahoans would not have access to educational television programming. Not so any more. Any number of television channels offer hordes of educational choices. Cooking, science, the arts and academics all have their own channels.
Years ago, supporters of Idaho Public Television claimed that if not for the taxpayer-subsidized channel, viewers in rural parts of the state could not access television programming, and that the people in the north were disconnected from the south, and vice versa. That's also not true anymore. Thanks to technology, rural areas and urban areas alike have access to many of the same television signals, either through cable or satellite.
Years ago, supporters of Idaho Public Television claimed that if not for Idaho Public Television, Idahoans would be deprived access to important, life-enhancing information. The Internet has clearly negated that argument. Indeed, many people are opting to download and watch on their computers content that was once exclusively television programming.
There are additional considerations worth noting:
If the Legislature contends that it is a compelling state government interest to run a television station, is the state negligent when it fails to provide each Idahoan a television on which to view the television signal they've dutifully paid for?
If the Legislature contends that every Idahoan needs access to a state television signal, why is the state deciding what information is offered via that television signal? Why not rebroadcast the quality educational programming being offered already by commercial television outlets? Why must the government create and control the content, and why must that government content then be used to compete against the private sector?
If the Legislature contends access to information is the most important reason for having taxpayer funding for Idaho Public Television, can the Legislature really argue that Idaho Public Television is really the single best vehicle for the dissemination of information, especially in light of all the other available technologies -- including those that were not available in 1965 when the broadcaster was created?
And finally, if lawmakers are prepared to continue taxpayer support for government television, are they prepared to go back to their districts and say, "Sorry folks, while TV is the first expense to be cut from your household budget in lean times, the TV in the state budget is exempt from consideration." Or, "We couldn't cut taxes, but you still have Sesame Street." Or, "We cut programs for the neediest people, but at least we were able to provide a cool episode of Outdoor Idaho."
Idaho Public Television does a great job. But it's a job that would receive no taxpayer support were it brand new in 2010. Today, one must strain to contend that television is the proper role of government. That's the lens through which lawmakers should view the decision of whether to continue funding it.
Comments
Is it true Governor Otter isSubmitted by Shawna (not verified) on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:28.
» - reply
Is it true Governor Otter is not ending funding for IPTV. Is he really, "fazing it out" over a four year period.
Lame.
Really?Submitted by BRJ (not verified) on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 18:24.
» - reply
Allow me to tear your argument apart.
I'll address your points in order
Argument 1: Educational Programming
Thanks for pointing out that cable offers so many opportunities for edudcational programming. But have you looked at daytime tv on major networks lately? Pretty sure they are mostly populated by daytime soap operas, game shows, and small claims court. I know, because I don't have cable.
Argument 2: the internet solves everything
Don't think so. First, people still have to pay for internet, which not everyone can afford. Second, the legislature has not been as proactive about putting its information onine as PTV has been about putting it on television. PTV has yet to be beaten in this state in terms of providing a forum for discussion on Idaho policy and politics.
Argument 3: compelling interest
I'm sorry, but YES, the government CAN decide that something is a compelling interest, and then structure support for it around narrowly tailored restrictions. It's not hypocracy, its reasonable and rational policy. For example, its in the governments compelling interest to uphold the bill of rights and the second ammendment. That doesn't mean that it needs to provide everyone with a gun. My point is that this argument has nothing to do with anything, and should have been left out entirely.
Argument 4: competing with the private sector
Did you know that Public television is supported by the free market? It's called donors! You see, every year, around March, when all the flowers start blooming, PTV viewers all over the state are asked to support their public television. If the station has provided sufficiently excellent programming the previous year, the people give! All the state did was support the transmission to rural areas. That means that its not the government choosing the programming, its the public voting with its dollars.
Argument 5: information dissemination
See my response to argument 2.
Argument 6: tradeoffs
I'm sorry but the 1.3 or 1.4 million that is being cut from public TV is NOT enough for you to make claims about tax cuts and social service spending. The marginal benefit to all the taxpayers of the modest spending here is far greater than the marginal benefit of that same money going to the vast majority of other causes. So the state spends about $1 per person to broadcast PTV all over the state for a whole year? Sounds like a deal to me!
Really?Submitted by BRJ (not verified) on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 18:20.
» - reply
Allow me to tear your argument apart.
I'll address your points in order
Argument 1: Educational Programming
Thanks for pointing out that cable offers so many opportunities for edudcational programming. But have you looked at daytime tv on major networks lately? Pretty sure they are mostly populated by daytime soap operas, game shows, and small claims court. I know, because I don't have cable.
Argument 2: the internet solves everything
Don't think so. First, people still have to pay for internet, which not everyone can afford. Second, the legislature has not been as proactive about putting its information onine as PTV has been about putting it on television. PTV has yet to be beaten in this state in terms of providing a forum for discussion on Idaho policy and politics.
Argument 3: compelling interest
I'm sorry, but YES, the government CAN decide that something is a compelling interest, and then structure support for it around narrowly tailored restrictions. It's not hypocracy, its reasonable and rational policy. For example, its in the governments compelling interest to uphold the bill of rights and the second ammendment. That doesn't mean that it needs to provide everyone with a gun. My point is that this argument has nothing to do with anything, and should have been left out entirely.
Argument 4: competing with the private sector
Did you know that Public television is supported by the free market? It's called donors! You see, every year, around March, when all the flowers start blooming, PTV viewers all over the state are asked to support their public television. If the station has provided sufficiently excellent programming the previous year, the people give! All the state did was support the transmission to rural areas. That means that its not the government choosing the programming, its the public voting with its dollars.
Argument 5: information dissemination
See my response to argument 2.
Argument 6: tradeoffs
I'm sorry but the 1.3 or 1.4 million that is being cut from public TV is NOT enough for you to make claims about tax cuts and social service spending. The marginal benefit to all the taxpayers of the modest spending here is far greater than the marginal benefit of that same money going to the vast majority of other causes. So the state spends about $1 per person to broadcast PTV all over the state for a whole year? Sounds like a deal to me!
A great serviceSubmitted by BRJ (not verified) on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 18:06.
» - reply
This is such a nonsense argument. Public Television is supported by the free market. It's called donations. I'm one of those donors. In fact, people in this state donate enough to provide all the financial support needed for programming like Outdoor Idaho and Diologue. The shortfall comes with transmission. The only thing that the state subsidized was the stations broadcasting in rural areas. So once again, those who are least able to benefit from state spending on things like highways and public infrastructure get the axe again. But just in case I haven't convinced you, let me topple your ivory tower.
Argument 1, there are other educational shows on TV: Nice of you to demonstrate the variety that cable provides. Too bad not everyone is able to afford cable, or chooses to buy sattelite service. With that gone, your daytime educational programming is narrowed down to daytime soap operas and the price is right.
Argument 2, the internet has solved everything: No it hasn't. The legislature has been far less proactive about posting its day to day operations online then public television has been about covering their actions. Public television serves as an important forum for discussion that, at least for the legislature, has yet to be paralleled equally on the internet. Also, people still have to purchase internet. Not everyone has elected or is able to do so, and public libraries are not always a reasonable distance from people's homes.
Argument 3, compelling interest. I've got news for you, the government can pick and choose a compelling interest and structure it around narrowly tailored restrictions. Of course it can support a television station. That does not mean that it has to provide the TV's. That argument is pointless. For example, it is in the governments compelling interest to uphold the second ammendment. Does it need to provide every household with a gun? No.
Argument 4, the government is competing with the private sector: Way to keep them on their toes government! Seriously? I'll refer to my first point in which I said that "government tv" is actually supported by donors. Donor support chooses the programming. Interesting, the donating public has chosen what it wants to compete with the private sector. You don't really watch PTV do you?
Argument 5, information dissemination: see response to argument 2
Argument 6, tradeoffs: I'm sorry, but the 1.3 1.4 million that the state spent on public television is too insignificant for you to call in "tax breaks" and "social services" arguments. The marginal benefits recieved by continuing to broadcast PTV to the roughly 700,000 to 1,000,000 Idaho residents outside of just the treasure valley wholly outweigh the marginal benefits that could possibly be recieved by a $1 million dollar statewide tax cut. What is that, less than a $1 a person? Wow, so the state spends a dollar per person to broadcase PTV? Sounds like a deal to me!
Idaho PTVSubmitted by IPTV Fan and State Employee (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 15:51.
» - reply
I do not have cable or satellite, nor as a state employee, can I afford it. I rely on IPTV not only for it's news programs and children's programing, but also for the Live stream of the Idaho Legislature http://idahoptv.org/leglive/
Butch Otter has had a rather negative impact on the State employee - your other article on health insurance is too ammusing. We don't pay the teachers very much to begin with, one of the main benefits is their Health Insurance. Take the benefit away, which helps to offset the low wages and what do they have? Teachers re-locating to areas that offer more than a slap in the face.
Wow, talk about a "sacredSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 13:55.
» - reply
Wow, talk about a "sacred cow"! How could we possibly survive without Idaho Reports, the weekly legislative show put on by the media/political celebs?
Wow, talk about a "sacredSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 13:53.
» - reply
Wow, talk about a "sacred cow"! How could we possibly survive without Idaho Reports, the weekly legislative show put on by the media/political celebs?
Origin of TraditionsSubmitted by Walt Holton (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 11:42.
» - reply
A little girl asked her mommy why she cut the ends off the roast before cooking; the mom answered, "That’s the way my mom did it." The little girl asked grandma the same question, grandma’s answer was, "my pot was too small for a whole roast."
Arguably, public TV may have served a societal purpose at some time past; it certainly served a political one. Those days are past. Even the message of leftist propaganda is more efficiently served via free market avenues. PBS is a relic and should face the axe without argument. If Outdoor Idaho or Nova are of use to society the free market will support them. Perhaps the State can gain from this cut…let’s let the free market determine that. Put it up for auction.
Post new comment